The location of the "protest" is a distraction......and the referenced article has nothing to do with disdain for the poor. The behavior is the point. Alcohol and drug abuse, public urination and defecation, filth and litter left behind for others to clear up...........these are not at the fringe of this movement, they are at it's core. Similar scenes have been repeated in many cities while these aimless malcontents, typically young and well educated, whine about getting their fair share.

The behavior is the point. Alcohol and drug abuse, public urination and defecation, filth and litter left behind for others to clear up...........these are not at the fringe of this movement, they are at it's core. Similar scenes have been repeated in many cities while these aimless malcontents, typically young and well educated, whine about getting their fair share.

The 99% certainly are a disgusting bunch. Glad they're not the majority.

For anyone interfering with everyone else to the level these freaks are, living/eating/sleeping/crapping on the ground IS their fair share. Only if they EARN more do they DESERVE more (presuming mental competence). Enduring changes come from education (little indication of that in the OWS movement), hard work (ditto), votes (valid only if based on knowing what the hell is going on), and legislation (you know, LAWS, not anarchy), not from crapping on streets and lawns.

Thanks for catching that very important yet missing preposition! I suspect that many in Jerusalem those many thousands of years ago would have at least cooked the tax collector in many circumstances._________________Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

The location of the "protest" is a distraction......and the referenced article has nothing to do with disdain for the poor. The behavior is the point. Alcohol and drug abuse, public urination and defecation, filth and litter left behind for others to clear up...........these are not at the fringe of this movement, they are at it's core. Similar scenes have been repeated in many cities while these aimless malcontents, typically young and well educated, whine about getting their fair share.

A distraction? Not because you say it is. "Ancient Christian site," wrecking it for believers, "holy site," desecration. The religiosity in that clip was purposeful.

Should the location be irrelevant to the ideas? Mostly. Was the significance of this particular location discussed by the author. Of course._________________Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

It should be no surprise that the contributor (Odone) charged with writing on matters of religion for the Daily Telegraph makes religious references in her piece. Neither should it be a surprise that many are offended by loutish behavior over an extended period at one of the most iconic historical sites in London. Would people in the US be perturbed by references to liberty if OWS was defecating on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial for months? Characterizing criticism of the odious behavior of many in the OWS movement as insensitivity to the poor and needy is simply disingenuous and a deflection from the central point.

When I was in college, and for a few years later after I entered the workforce, I was visually the long haired hippy character. It was quite revealing how many folks responded to my appearance. I was continually amazed by the lack of trust and the deep suspicion by many.

Today, I get the feeling that many harsh critics of the Occupy Wall Street movement hold many of the same kind of prejudices. That often breeds unwarranted conclusions and a bold disdain for folks that don't fit your narrow paradigms.

While mrgybe wasn't there at St Paul's Cathedral, he's eager to hang his opinion on a questionable woman with a clear prejudice. Opinions from religious nuts are often very suspect and specious in nature, but some don't seem to see that.

Peoples initial response to strangers is usually according to appearance. Appearance is seen as defining how a person wishes to be perceived by others. If a man dresses as a Hells Angle he can expect to be reacted to with suspicion, and if a woman dresses provocatively she can expect to draw the wrong kind of attention. You won't change human nature. (If I had turned up to teach dressed inappropriately, I'd have been sent home.)

We all KNOW that appearance can be deceptive, and a few moments of initial contact and conversation can correct any false impression, but the fact remains that if you wish to define what you stand for, you ACT including dress) accordingly. Those outside St Pauls have DONE so. Neither was it by accident that that very site, with all its religious symbolism, was chosen for their 'protest'!

As Dr. Phil would say "when you choose the behavior you choose the consequences".

When it comes to perceptions and dress, you get what you ask for. If you have a brain and you choose to cover your body with tattoos or wear your pants at your knees or have cleavage to your waist (girls) or dress in a $1000 dollar suit, folks will quickly have an opinion about what type of person you are. These perceptions may or may not be correct, but when you choose the look (or behavior), you shouldn't be surprised at the response.

For some reason, a lot of people don't seem to understand how this works.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum